Alan Watts on "Ex nihilo nihil fit"

[Beyondo]

There is always a frame of reference, whether you are aware of it or not.

What I am asking is: what is the background of perception?

You are only giving me a relative view. I want to know the universal view. However, even in a relative view, the frame of reference is the other bit of information. They share a common background, however.

Ever take a paint sample into Home Depot to get a color match? Those computers that scan the chip and come up with a formula are using a neutral color as reference against which to determine actual color.

When you say the word "something", you are automatically using a frame of reference against which you determine that it is, indeed, some-thing. If you did not, you would only have a mass of undifferentiated goo. But 'something' possesses a defining characteristic. What gives it that defining characteristic of shape and form that you are able to make it out as "something"?

That something has different elemets and states which would be the reframe of reference. e.g. the picture you provided with black and white both the black and white are something, so in effect the comparison is done from various types of somethings. But you were asking for a universal view which is why I generalized it to information and no need for a reference to nothing.

Perception does not require information; it requires attention. Information comes afterwards, but any information is seen against a field. That is how your perception is able to distinguish it as such. Spoken words are heard against the background of silence; written text is seen against the background of blank paper; etc.

Perception does require information, such as fields, photons, mass, etc. Without information there would be no preception. Do not confuse information with knowledge. Also intelligence doesn't necessarily mean conciousness, e.g. Electrons have form of intelligence in that they can decern between types of photons such charged field photons, electromagnetic photons, etc and react to such perception of this information (Photons) accordingly. Intelligence, just like mass and energy is a form of information.

You still seem to force a need for the symmetry of something/nothing and compare it to the contrast of different somethings. The fact that you can only make your analogies by contrasting different sonethings should tell you something. LOL

Nothing doesn't exist! :human:

 

[godnotgod]

That something has different elemets and states which would be the reframe of reference. e.g. the picture you provided with black and white both the black and white are something, so in effect the comparison is done from various types of somethings.

It just so happens in this particular case that both "somethings" are both figure and ground to each other. When you are looking at one figure, the other is ground, and vice versa, so ground here is relative no-thing-ness. When you are looking at both of them together, the background for both is absolute no-thing-ness.

In the following illustration, there is only one figure and one ground.

The figure is "some-thing". What is the background?

Nothing doesn't exist!

So everything is something?

 

[godnotgod]

That something has different elemets and states which would be the reframe of reference. e.g. the picture you provided with black and white both the black and white are something, so in effect the comparison is done from various types of somethings. But you were asking for a universal view which is why I generalized it to information and no need for a reference to nothing.

Most people, when viewing figure and ground examples such as the one I displayed, do not immediately make out the figure, and in this case, do not immediately make out that there are two figures. What they see is one figure first against a background, and then they see that what they first saw as undifferentiated background (nothing), is actually a recognizable shape. So the undifferentiated background that you are calling 'something' actually plays the part of no-thing, if only for a moment. Where there is only one figure, the undifferentiated background is no-thing. It is absolutely essential to recognizing the figure.

Nothing is essential to something.

 

[godnotgod]

You still seem to force a need for the symmetry of something/nothing and compare it to the contrast of different somethings. The fact that you can only make your analogies by contrasting different sonethings should tell you something. LOL

Yes, that nothing is what goes unnoticed, because our Western mind has been indoctrinated, hard wired, to focus narrowly only on the foreground of our being, ignoring the background. Watts refers to this narrow focusing and scanning of our environment as "Spotlight Attention". In the East, people are taught to take in the entire field of perception all at once, including the background; this being "Floodlight Attention".

If you notice many 19th century American paintings, you will find human figures depicted 'larger than life', staunch and assertive, as if in full control of their environment. The stand out from the background, always in the fore. It is man in control of nature. Contrast this with Eastern, especially Chinese Taoist paintings of mountains. You have to look a little more closely to locate the tiny huts and human figures against an overpowering, but not threatening, backdrop of nature. The background behind the mountains are misty, signifying uncertainty, which, in the East, is a positive quality. This uncertainty, this 'unknowing mind' is empty of any particular thing, or no-thing, and therefore, capable of containing everything.

 

[godnotgod]

Beyondo, I get the feeling we are looking at the idea of nothing differently. I, as an eternal condition, or state of the universe, that is behind the universe whether the universe is being manifested or not, and you, as a 'something' that is concrete, which it cannot be. In other words, you are saying that nothing cannot exist because it is not something.

Is that about right?

 

[Beyondo]

Beyondo, I get the feeling we are looking at the idea of nothing differently. I, as an eternal condition, or state of the universe, that is behind the universe whether the universe is being manifested or not, and you, as a 'something' that is concrete, which it cannot be. In other words, you are saying that nothing cannot exist because it is not something.

Is that about right?

That's correct. In every example you've given so far as "no-thing" is in fact something. The term "nothing" is used in a lackadaisical way in just about every language but its literal meaning is in fact non-sensical because in any reality nothing can not be real.

 

[godnotgod]

That's correct. In every example you've given so far as "no-thing" is in fact something. The term "nothing" is used in a lackadaisical way in just about every language but its literal meaning is in fact non-sensical because in any reality nothing can not be real.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. What you call something also does not exist, as Capra and others have discovered:

"To the Physicists, there is no longer any single object; everything is one and the same object."

Add to this the almost completely empty space found at the atomic level, and "something" becomes even more elusive....approaching 'nothing', if you will.

Now, if all 'somethings' are, in fact, a single 'something', then that single something is 'no-[particular]-thing'.
As I said, the nothing that I am referring to is a pre-existing state; a condition, from which all 'somethings' emerge. The moment you conceptualize and speak the word 'something', you are doing it against (or within) a pre-existing background or sphere of nothingness, but you do not notice it because it is inaccessible via ordinary perception. So you say that nothing cannot exist, but you are looking at it from the point of view of the rational mind, which you are using to ascertain 'something', and which is in error, because it is creating a concept of reality, calling it 'someting' which is not real.

If everything is 'some-thing', then it is 'no-thing'.

'Someting' exists only as a concept within the mind.

"From the One came the Two;
from the Two came the Three;
and from the Three came
the Ten Thousand Things"

Tao te Ching

 

[Beyondo]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. What you call something also does not exist, as Capra and others have discovered:

"To the Physicists, there is no longer any single object; everything is one and the same object."

Add to this the almost completely empty space found at the atomic level, and "something" becomes even more elusive....approaching 'nothing', if you will.

Not really, You think that the something has to be touchable or perceivable. Most physicists believe this as well. Read this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...37-can-universe-virtual-without-designer.html

A virtual universe would have the properties that physicist experience when trying to resolve matter, such as; the strangeness of causality and the transparency or lack of solidness of matter. However what creates the virtualness is an imperceptible, very real something whose dynamics rub against one another. From the thread I propose a chaotic process which in some context is a lack of form that formalizes reality. But the whole point is that something remains eternal and was never created despite that it is chaotic.

Now, if all 'somethings' are, in fact, a single 'something', then that single something is 'no-[particular]-thing'.
As I said, the nothing that I am referring to is a pre-existing state; a condition, from which all 'somethings' emerge. The moment you conceptualize and speak the word 'something', you are doing it against (or within) a pre-existing background or sphere of nothingness, but you do not notice it because it is inaccessible via ordinary perception. So you say that nothing cannot exist, but you are looking at it from the point of view of the rational mind, which you are using to ascertain 'something', and which is in error, because it is creating a concept of reality, calling it 'someting' which is not real.

If everything is 'some-thing', then it is 'no-thing'.

'Someting' exists only as a concept within the mind.

"From the One came the Two;
from the Two came the Three;
and from the Three came
the Ten Thousand Things"

Tao te Ching

Ah no I'm not creating something out of some imperceptible background of nothing. Something reacts to something else that causes my perception and my consciousness. In effect human consciousness is no different than a rock. Rock is a rock because something causes it to be a rock. Human consciousness is human consciousness because something causes it to be human consciousness. A reference to nothing is not needed for such phenomena to happen. The notion of real nothing reminds me of the medieval illustrations of ships falling off the edge of the world. Such ideas exist because people need borders, edges or symmetries in their conceptualizations.

Nothing, as it implies, does not exist in a universe of somethings...

 

[godnotgod]

Not really, You think that the something has to be touchable or perceivable. Most physicists believe this as well.

No, not at all. Ultimately, I see the universe as even beyond being virtual; I see it as apparitional. In a nutshell, here is the gist of it:

"The Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation. Time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see."

...and here is the expanded discussion:

John Dobson of The Sidewalk Astronomers

Ah no I'm not creating something out of some imperceptible background of nothing. Something reacts to something else that causes my perception and my consciousness. In effect human consciousness is no different than a rock. Rock is a rock because something causes it to be a rock. Human consciousness is human consciousness because something causes it to be human consciousness. A reference to nothing is not needed for such phenomena to happen. The notion of real nothing reminds me of the medieval illustrations of ships falling off the edge of the world. Such ideas exist because people need borders, edges or symmetries in their conceptualizations.

Nothing, as it implies, does not exist in a universe of somethings...

But there are no such "somethings", as all such ideas of distinct things are illusory. All of your 'somethings' are completely interconnected. All distinct 'somethings' are simply variations of form. Underneath them all is a formless, undifferentiated commonality, and that commonality is no-thing-ness.

"There is no Bodhi Tree
Nor the stand of a bright mirror,
Since all is void,
Where can the dust alight? "

Sixth Zen Patriarch

 

[Beyondo]

But there are no such "somethings", as all such ideas of distinct things are illusory. All of your 'somethings' are completely interconnected. All distinct 'somethings' are simply variations of form. Underneath them all is a formless, undifferentiated commonality, and that commonality is no-thing-ness.

"There is no Bodhi Tree
Nor the stand of a bright mirror,
Since all is void,
Where can the dust alight? "

Sixth Zen Patriarch

Interconnectedness and illusions are the stuff of virtual realities. What you say doesn't exist is becasue you can never precieve its root cause. But from your very own intellect you create the idea of "nothingness" which by your logic is an illusion...

 

[godnotgod]

Interconnectedness and illusions are the stuff of virtual realities.

Whatever, but what I am saying is that, because all 'somethings' are interconnected, with which you seem to agree, there is no particular thing we can say is real. Therefore, your allusion to a universe filled with 'somethings' is false.

What you say doesn't exist is becasue you can never precieve its root cause.

There is no 'root cause' to nothingness. It is a condition that has always been. There is nothing that is the 'cause' of nothingness. It is a condition that is uncaused; unborn; ungrown.

But from your very own intellect you create the idea of "nothingness" which by your logic is an illusion...

Nothingness itself is not illusory because there is no something that can be an illusion. However, what we call 'everything' is a manifestation that emerges from nothingness. It cannot come from me, as you claim, because I, too, am an illusion, a temporary, uncaused, unborn manifestation of the universe.

It appears that, for you, 'something' is an absolute, with no corresponding nothingness being a reality. But all somethings do not originally exist. Nor do they continue on for eternity. Before and after all somethings, what is there?

 

[Beyondo]

Before and after all somethings, what is there?

As I've been stating all along there is no need to create the "Something" that is the root cause of our reality (illusion), it is eternal. Notions of "beginnings" and "endings" are the products of human beings that are derived from their experience of forms that have come and gone.

 

[godnotgod]

As I've been stating all along there is no need to create the "Something" that is the root cause of our reality (illusion), it is eternal. Notions of "beginnings" and "endings" are the products of human beings that are derived from their experience of forms that have come and gone.

Are you saying that the eternal 'something' which you refer to is somehow different than those which "have come and gone"? As I said, you seem to be implying that 'something' is absolute, and which has no counterpart that is 'no-thing'.

Watts never stated that any 'something' was created at all.

He only said that "everything comes out of nothing"

A wave on the surface of the ocean is not created; it comes out of the undifferentiated 'un-waveness' of the source itself, the ocean, and returns to it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Right. The ocean is undifferentiated. Yet a wave is readily noticed whenever it takes form of which there is no true "beginning" or "end" as a wave is still ocean.

Well put GNG.

 

[Beyondo]

Are you saying that the eternal 'something' which you refer to is somehow different than those which "have come and gone"? As I said, you seem to be implying that 'something' is absolute, and which has no counterpart that is 'no-thing'.

Correct there is no real counter part to something, nothing is an invention or better yet an artifact of man's mind/brain ability to negate terms in logic.

A wave on the surface of the ocean is not created; it comes out of the undifferentiated 'un-waveness' of the source itself, the ocean, and returns to it.

But waves are created by weather influences which are caused by the sun. What the wave is composed of was also created from the furnaces of stars. What isn't created is the root cause of our reality or all realties. When a wave diminishes it has dissipated its energy it doesn't return to the ocean as if it were some kind of sea monster. LOL

 

[godnotgod]

Correct there is no real counter part to something, nothing is an invention or better yet an artifact of man's mind/brain ability to negate terms in logic.

But that is what is true of 'something'; it is only a concept. However, nothing is the no-concept of no-concept.

But waves are created by weather influences which are caused by the sun. What the wave is composed of was also created from the furnaces of stars. What isn't created is the root cause of our reality or all realties. When a wave diminishes it has dissipated its energy it doesn't return to the ocean as if it were some kind of sea monster. LOL

No, but both undifferentiated ocean (source) and wave (form) are made of water, and it is water, in the temporary form of a wave, that 'returns' to the ocean. We think of the wave as 'something', when in fact, it is only an energy-form. In reality, the wave does not really exist as a valid and distinct 'something', as it is always connected to the source that is the ocean. Likewise, all phenomena that we call 'something' does not actually exist perse, as phenomena are not only always connected to the source that is undifferentiated no-thing-ness, but always inter-connected to other phenomena. There is no separate 'something' that exists as such. In reality, we are dealing with appearances, both in the microscopic and macroscopic spheres. The fact that waves are create by many forces further demonstrates this interconnectedness of all things.

Like waveforms, all forms that we think of as 'something' arise out of this background of undifferentiated interconnectedness that is no-thing, just as Watts is telling us:

"Everything comes out of nothing"

The simplicity of this statement cannot be grasped by the thinking mind. It can only be realized by immediate insight.

The reality of the interconnectedness of all things is known as The Law of Dependent Origination in Buddhism. It simply states that:

It is produced; therefore the other is produced.
It is extinguished; therefore the other is extinguished.
It exists; therefore the other exists.
It does not exist; therefore the other does not exist.

"Form is emptiness;
emptiness is form.
form is not other than emptiness;
emptiness is not other than form"
Heart Sutra

"Fundamentally, not one thing exists."
Sixth Zen Patriarch

I would say that all things which we call 'something' exist only as concepts within the mind.

 

[godnotgod]

Right. The ocean is undifferentiated. Yet a wave is readily noticed whenever it takes form of which there is no true "beginning" or "end" as a wave is still ocean.

Well put GNG.

Yes, wave and ocean are always of the same unborn nature, as is all phenomena. There is no birth and death; no creation, and therefore, no destruction.

"All this world is filled with coming and going. [ie; 'birth and death']
Show me the path where there is no coming and there is no going."
Unknown Zen source

 

[godnotgod]

Correct there is no real counter part to something, nothing is an invention or better yet an artifact of man's mind/brain ability to negate terms in logic.

But there must be something against which you are determining that something is indeed something. Otherwise, you would have no way of defining it. You see and respond to form, which you determine to be distinct against a background of other distinct forms, or of no distinct forms (ie; 'no-thing'). This concept of distinct form you see as being separate from its background, and call it 'some-thing', not seeing its interconnectedness with all things/no-things. The distinction so determined is automatic. You are not consciously aware of the background in your determination.

 

[Beyondo]

But that is what is true of 'something'; it is only a concept. However, nothing is the no-concept of no-concept.

That's a double negation, which means you made it a concept. Remember -1*-1 = 1 and not something = nothing, not nothing = something, not concept = no concept and not no concept = concept...

No, but both undifferentiated ocean (source) and wave (form) are made of water, and it is water, in the temporary form of a wave, that 'returns' to the ocean. We think of the wave as 'something', when in fact, it is only an energy-form. In reality, the wave does not really exist as a valid and distinct 'something', as it is always connected to the source that is the ocean. Likewise, all phenomena that we call 'something' does not actually exist perse, as phenomena are not only always connected to the source that is undifferentiated no-thing-ness, but always inter-connected to other phenomena. There is no separate 'something' that exists as such. In reality, we are dealing with appearances, both in the microscopic and macroscopic spheres.

Sorry but the wave is a distinct something: E=Mc^2 or we can get the what you call valid something: M = E/c^2. So this would invalidate your notion that the wave is always connected to the source. Since the wave can be described by E = Mc^2 then it can jump to different mediums(impart mometum), or what you call sources. So by that very behavior of the wave proves it is a valid and distict something...

The fact that waves are create by many forces further demonstrates this interconnectedness of all things.

This is where the idea of a butter flies wings having an effect on the overall scheme of things ran into problems. You see the idea of small influences having large effects can from weather simulation programs. The problem with those simulations is they never dissipated the small energy effects as it would have happen in real life. So all the programs did is accumulate, but reality is that small effects end up getting used up, like in pushing a leaf, or small speck of dust, etc. So the connectedness stuff is not as you say where all effects have a contribution in spawning things from nothingness.

Like waveforms, all forms that we think of as 'something' arise out of this background of undifferentiated interconnectedness that is no-thing, just as Watts is telling us:

"Everything comes out of nothing"

The simplicity of this statement cannot be grasped by the thinking mind. It can only be realized by immediate insight.

The reality of the interconnectedness of all things is known as The Law of Dependent Origination in Buddhism. It simply states that:

It is produced; therefore the other is produced.
It is extinguished; therefore the other is extinguished.
It exists; therefore the other exists.
It does not exist; therefore the other does not exist.

Here you go again with the need for symmetries, no such rule or mandate exists.

I would say that all things which we call 'something' exist only as concepts within the mind.

But nothing is just the negation of something and therefore since somethings are concepts of the mind so is nothing. Your brain simply complimented the term "something" and created nothing. If you believe something to be an illusion then nothing is just as much an illusion since your brain relied on the notion of something to create the concept of nothing. Dictating this as wrong only proves your inability to grasp the understanding of your brain's abilities to perform logical operations with language.

Go on about nothing, LOL, but lacking this fundamental concept of humanity's ability to perform logical operations will lead you nowhere...

 

[godnotgod]

Go on about nothing, LOL, but lacking this fundamental concept of humanity's ability to perform logical operations will lead you nowhere...

heh heh heh...I see. So there is no such thing as nothing, but there is a nowhere, now, is there? Uh...what was that you were saying about logic?....or is that 'fawlty towers'?

Do you suppose that the astronomical proliferation of such things as, say, stars, is a result of logic?

Do you think man needs to be a logical being in such an illogical universe?

And is there a very good reason why logic seems to fail at times, where the universe simply refuses to obey such rigid rules?

I will address the rest of your posts later. Right now, my logic is telling me to go nowhere where I can be nothing and no one. Ah, the joys of anonymity! Now that is something!